"An INFIELD FLY is a fair fly ball (not including a line drive nor an attempted bunt) which can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort, when first and second, or first, second and third bases are occupied, before two are out. The pitcher, catcher and any outfielder who stations himself in the infield on the play shall be considered infielders for the purpose of this rule.When it seems apparent that a batted ball will be an Infield Fly, the umpire shall immediately declare Infield Fly for the benefit of the runners"

You don't have to be "under it" when the call is made.

Oh and after watching the replay, he was under it. He had come to a stop and was looking directly up.

I already burst this bubble.

Having to go that far onto the outfield does not constitute "ordinary effort" for an infielder. End of.

"it's a judgment call" has been said quite a few times, so yeah I'd say there's room for interpretation here. I'm not even sure you and the rest of the people arguing about this are arguing the same thing.

He's actually been quite good. Especially if you look at his last few starts.

Why are the O's pitching Saunders!?!?!

Quite a turnaround, then. Earlier in the year, I had him on my fantasy team and he would pitch an occasional clunker. When he didn't, it was because he'd get lucky enough to strand all the runners he walked. Reminded me of very early Matsuzaka.

Quite a turnaround, then. Earlier in the year, I had him on my fantasy team and he would pitch an occasional clunker. When he didn't, it was because he'd get lucky enough to strand all the runners he walked. Reminded me of very early Matsuzaka.

Earlier in the year, he was struggling. But he turned it around.

Let's put it this way: I wish the Nationals had spend 100 million on Yu Darvish instead of 11 million on Edwin Jackson.